Issue - decisions
40 Marsh Wall, London E14 9TP
19/03/2010 - 40 Marsh Wall, London E14 9TP (PA/09/01220)
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented details of the suggested reasons for refusal of the planning application, based on concerns voiced by Members at the meeting of the Committee held on 15 December 2009, but that the reference to parking issues should be broadened to include inadequacy of provision for coach parking.
Members confirmed that the report adequately reflected the matters raised, subject to additional wording to take account of coach parking and, on a vote of nil for and three against the original Officer recommendation, it was –
RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of the existing office building at 40 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9TP and erection of a 39 storey building (equivalent of 40 Storeys on Manilla Street) with three-level basement, comprising a 305 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1) with associated ancillary hotel facilities including restaurants (Use Class A3), leisure facilities (Use Class D2) and conference facilities (Use Class D1); serviced offices (Use Class B1); together with rooftop plant, associated landscaping and the formation of a taxi drop-off point on Marsh Wall be REFUSED subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, for the following reasons:
- The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive height and bulk, would appear out of character with the surrounding area. As a result, it is considered that the proposal would be out of keeping with the existing urban form. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 4B.1, 4B.8, 4B.9, and 4B.10 of The London Plan 2008, policies DEV1, DEV2 and DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998)and policies CP48, DEV1, DEV2, DEV27 and IOD21 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance 2007 which seek to ensure development and tall buildings in particular are of an appropriate design, height, scale and mass.
- The proposed development would result in unacceptable traffic and parking impacts and as such is contrary to Policies 2A.1, 3A.7, 3C.1, 3C.2, 3C.19, 3C.20 of The London Plan (Consolidated 2008), PPS1, PPG13, Policy ST25, ST28, ST30, T16, T18, T19, T21 of the LBTH UDP 1998, Policies DEV17, DEV18, DEV19 of the LBTH IPG 2007 which seek to ensure the proposal does not impact on the local road system. The coach parking facilities proposed in the application are considered inadequate.
- The planning obligations are considered inadequate to mitigate against the impact of the development. As such, the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Policy DEV4 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (1998) which seeks to secure appropriate planning obligations which are reasonably related to the scale and nature of the proposed development and are necessary for the development to proceed.
18/12/2009 - 40 Marsh Wall, London E14 9TP
On a vote of one for and four against, it was –
RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for demolition of the existing building at 40 Marsh Wall and erection of a 39 storey building (equivalent of 40 storeys on Manila Street) with three-level basement, comprising a 305 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1) with associated ancillary hotel facilities including restaurants (Use Class A3), leisure facilities (Use Class A3), leisure facilities (Use Class D2) and conference facilities (Use Class D1), serviced offices (Use Class B1); together with rooftop plant and associated landscaping and the formation of a taxi drop-off point on Marsh Wall be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of serious concerns over:
- The issue of impact on views from the south of the site.
- The allocation of S106 funding towards highway improvements and footway reconstruction with York stone and granite sets on the south side of Marsh Wall.
- Public transport issues.
- Inadequacy of coach and other vehicular parking facilities.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.